The Evo God Gives All the Wrong Answers

I have always been slightly suspicious of the theory of evolution because of its ability to account for any property of living beings (the long neck of the giraffe, for example). I have therefore tried to see whether biological discoveries over the last thirty years or so fit in with Darwinís theory.

The Evo God Gives All the Wrong Answers

1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:

2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.

4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.

6 He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.

Pretty sobering passage, don’t you think? Putting on the mind of Christ is what the born-again have been born to do, but it does not come without effort. Jesus uses the word strive; Luke 13:23-24:

23 Then said one unto him, Lord, are there few that be saved? And he said unto them,

24 Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.

As believers in Christ, we become aware that lip service just won’t do. Consider II Timothy 2:19:

Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.

True salvation is repenting and turning away from sin, believing upon the saving blood of Jesus Christ, and it is there, at this place Jesus calls “born again,” that the eternal journey begins.

Acts 11:26 tells us they were first called Christians at Antioch. Christian means follower of Christ. Automatic pilot won’t work; striving against sin is required.

It might sound daunting, but be assured God will supply all that the willing heart will ever need. The born-again journey is filled with the incomprehensible blessings of redemption, the beautiful promises of God, the bushels of fruit born in the Kingdom of God, and the full shedding of the dead deeds of the flesh. This is the place Jesus calls “life and life more abundantly.”

Have you been born again? Have you been giving lip service to the Cross of Christ—a Christian in name only? Today is your day to set the record straight. Will you begin the journey whose end is eternal life? Will today be the day all your sin and shame are expunged from your record? The battle for your eternal soul is raging at this very moment. The victory is yours. Click onto “Further With Jesus” now for childlike instructions and immediate entry into the Kingdom of God. NOW FOR TODAY’S SUBJECT.

GOD SAID, Genesis 1:1:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

GOD SAID, Exodus 20:11:

For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

GOD SAID, Genesis 5:3:

And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:

MAN SAID: Give me enough time and chance, and anything is possible!

Now THE RECORD: Welcome to GodSaidManSaid feature 885 where we will, once again, certify the inerrancy of the Word of God. All of these features are archived here in text and streaming audio for the building-up of the faith, and as ammunition in the battle for the souls of the sons of Adam. Every Thursday eve, God willing, they grow by one. Thank you for visiting. May God’s face shine upon you.

II Thessalonians 2:10 speaks of a concept called the “deceivableness of unrighteousness.” The word righteousness was coined by God and attributed to Abraham in the book of Genesis because Abraham believed God and acted upon that faith. So then, righteousness is faith in God and the resultant actions that follow. Unrighteousness, on the other hand, is unbelief in God and His Word and the resultant deeds that follow. There is a special deceivableness found in unbelief.

Romans 1:28:

And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

A reprobate mind is a worthless one; it is a delusion that is spirit-based and a result of unbelief. Just as faith and unbelief are 180° out from each other, so are the conclusions both groups reach after observing the same facts. For example, Genesis 1:26-27:

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

The righteous understand that man was created in the glorious image and after the likeness of God. The deceivableness of unrighteousness, on the other hand, says we slithered out of some unknown primordial soup, with some even suggesting that life’s “evolution” was enabled by a fortuitous abundance of amoeba dung.

The problems of faith vs. unbelief began in the Garden of Eden just over 6,000 years ago, when God’s truth was rejected for Satan’s lie. Ever since, it’s been “like mother, like daughter; like father, like son.” Imagine, the only way to escape this bizarre, inherited, carnal dilemma is to be born again. How appropriate!

The deceivableness of unrighteousness holds complete sway in the vast majority of public education—from elementary grades to the universities—and their god of choice is evolution. Just like the Bible, evolution offers answers to life’s hard questions such as: Where did I come from? Why am I here? Where am I going? Evolution’s answers to those questions are: You evolved from nothing via an accident; you have no real purpose, and when you die, you go nowhere. Not very flattering, is it? Conversely, the righteous know that the Creator of the universe made them in His image and after His likeness, that they are here on earth with a purpose to glorify God and to reconcile the fallen sons of Adam unto Christ, and that their end is eternal life in Christ Jesus. The contrast between the camps could not be more stark.

The unsuspecting would think that the theory of evolution is fact instead of theory, and that all men of learning endorse it—but neither statement is true. This feature will, once again, demonstrate the vacuous fruits of the reprobate mind—a mind that refuses to retain God in its knowledge.

W.R. Bird authored two masterful volumes on the origin of the species. The title of the scholarly text is The Origin of Species Revisited with the subhead, “The Theories of Evolution and of Abrupt Appearance.” These volumes were published in 1991, and the insights and conclusions are more relevant today than when penned, especially when one considers the massive accumulation of fossil specimens that have still left glaring transitional gaps in the evolutionary timeline. In these volumes, 2,000 expert scientific quotations are used. Many of those experts—if not a large majority—are not creationist scientists. Excerpts from Volume I follow. From S. Løvtrup’s Book, Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth:

Micromutations do occur, but the theory that these alone can account for evolutionary change is either falsified, or else it is an unfalsifiable, hence metaphysical theory.

I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to false theory. But this is what has happened in biology: for a long time now people discuss evolutionary problems in a particular ‘Darwinian’ vocabulary—‘adaptation,’ ‘selection pressure,’ ‘natural selection,’ etc.—thereby believing that they contribute to the explanation of natural events. They do not, and the sooner this is discovered, the sooner we shall be able to make real progress in our understanding of evolution.

I believe one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens many people will pose the question: How did this ever happen? [End of quote]

Concerning the evolutionary classification of all life beginning with one single-celled organism, page 91 reads:

The data of classification support the distinct ancestry better than the postulated common ancestry of natural groups of organisms, in the view of the discontinuist scientists, for several reasons that are conceded by many evolutionary scientists. As a preliminary consideration, similarities between organisms, which cause them to be grouped together, only “imply shared characteristics…rather than common ancestry,” as Patterson points out. “[T]here exists no a priori relation between the appearance of two structures and their relatedness,” in the words of Schwabe and Warr.

Failure to exercise caution in inferring relatedness from similarity has led to “highly speculative” ventures at classification based on evolutionary assumptions (Huxley), to “many works on phylogeny [that] read like imaginative literature rather than science” and that “fill gaps in the data with speculations” (Ghiselin), and to phylogenies in textbooks that “are, as a rule, a festering mass of unsupported assertions” (Bonner). [End of quote]

According to the book, an anti-evolutionism movement is afoot:

Anti-Darwinism and Anti-Evolutionism. Rejection of macroevolution or Darwinism, and skepticism toward them, are widespread among non-creationist scientists as well as among discontinuist scientists. In fact, “scientists who utterly reject evolution may be one of our fastest-growing controversial minorities,” Hatfield writes. There are “some among the biologists who feel that much of the fabric of [macroevolutionary] theory accepted by the majority today is actually false,” and “a generally silent group of students engaged in biological pursuits who tend to disagree with much of the current thought,” Olson acknowledges.

Lipson, a British physicist and Fellow of the Royal Society, rejects macroevolution based on his scientific analysis of it:

I have always been slightly suspicious of the theory of evolution because of its ability to account for any property of living beings (the long neck of the giraffe, for example). I have therefore tried to see whether biological discoveries over the last thirty years or so fit in with Darwin’s theory. I do not think that they do.

To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all.

Denton, an Australian molecular biologist, discards Darwinism and macroevolution based on his assessment of the evidence:

In this book, I have adopted the radical approach. By presenting a systematic critique of the current Darwinian model, ranging from paleontology to molecular biology, I have tried to show why I believe that the problems are too severe and too intractable to offer any hope of resolution in terms of the orthodox Darwinian framework, and that consequently the conservative view is no longer tenable.

The anti-evolutionary thesis argued in this book, the idea that life might be fundamentally a discontinuous phenomenon, runs counter to the whole thrust of modern biological thought. [End of quotes]

Concerning fossils:

Patterson concludes that the concept that fossils are the best evidence for evolution is a “myth:”

I conclude that instances of fossils overturning theories of relationship based on recent organisms are very rare, and may be nonexistent. It follows that the widespread belief that fossils are the only or best means of determining evolutionary relationships is a myth. Tracing how this myth came to be an article of faith among biologists [an “Idol of the Academy”] should be an interesting study in the sociology of science; it seems to have followed, as an unquestioned corollary, from acceptance of evolution.

(1) Abrupt Appearances and Gaps. The overwhelming problem that the fossil record poses for macroevolution thus is that the record is characterized by abrupt appearances and systematic gaps, as paleontologist Gould acknowledges:

Increasing diversity and multiple transitions seem to reflect a determined and inexorable progression toward higher things. But the paleontological record supports no such interpretation. There has been no steady progress in the higher development of organic design. We have had, instead, vast stretches of little or no change and one evolutionary burst that created the entire system.

New species almost always appeared suddenly in the fossil record with no intermediate links to ancestors in older rocks of the same region.

The systematic gaps are actually “the trade secret of paleontology:”

The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.

That trade secret is being let out by more and more scientists, such as Grassé and Boyden for the origin of phyla, George and Simpson for the origin of genera and families, and many others quoted in Sections 2.1 and 2.2.

The alleged evolutionary trees are not just mostly “inference” rather than “data,” but are “highly conjectural” and either do not support or actually “deny” macroevolution. [End of quote]

Grassé, “the most distinguished of French zoologists” according to Dobzhansky, has concluded that “the explanatory doctrines of biological evolution do not stand up to an in-depth criticism:”

The book of Pierre P. Grassé is a frontal attack on all kinds of “Darwinism.” Its purpose is “to destroy the myth of evolution as a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon,” and to show that evolution is a mystery about which little is, and perhaps can, be known. Now, one can disagree with Grassé but not ignore him. He is the most distinguished of French zoologists, the editor of the 28 volumes of Traité de Zoologie, the author of numerous original investigations, and ex-president of the Academie des Sciences. His knowledge of the living world is encyclopedic, and his book is replete with interesting facts that any biologist would profit by knowing. Unfortunately, the theoretical interpretations of these facts leave one dissatisfied, and occasionally exasperated. [End of quote]

The concept of abrupt appearance is not a creationist term, but the Scriptures surely endorse it, for in six literal days, God created all the lifeforms that cover the earth today. Bird continues:

The systematic abrupt appearances of complex life and the systematic gaps between living forms have been acknowledged by such leading evolutionary scientists as Gould, a brilliant paleontologist at Harvard, Raup, a noted geologist and dean of the Field Museum of Natural History, and Stanley, a prominent paleontologist at Johns Hopkins, as well as by many others quoted in the following paragraphs:

Increasing diversity and multiple transitions seem to reflect a determined and inexorable progression towards higher things. But the paleontological record supports no such interpretation. There has been no steady progress in the higher development of organic design. We have had, instead, vast stretches of little or no change and one evolutionary burst that created the entire system.

Unfortunately, the origins of most higher categories are shrouded in mystery; commonly new higher categories appear abruptly in the fossil record without evidence of transitional ancestral forms.

Those systematic abrupt appearances and systematic gaps are “almost always” the case at the species level, and are characteristic of “nearly all” the higher categories, as Gould and Simpson note:

New species almost always appeared suddenly in the fossil record with no intermediate links to ancestors in older rocks of the same region.

In spite of these examples, it remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families and that nearly all new categories above the level of families appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences. [End of quote]

(1) Rationalizations for Abrupt Appearances. The reason for abrupt appearances and gaps can no longer be attributed to the “imperfection of the fossil record,” as it was by Darwin when paleontology was a young science. With over 200,000,000 catalogued specimens of about 250,000 fossil species, many evolutionary paleontologists such as Stanley argue that the fossil record is sufficient:

In part, the role of paleontology in evolutionary research has been defined narrowly because of a false belief, tracing back to Darwin and his early followers, that the fossil record is woefully incomplete. Actually, the record is of sufficiently high quality to allow us to undertake certain kinds of analysis meaningfully at the level of the species.

Gould, Eldredge and Tattersall, Kitts, and Raup agree. For example, Raup, whose Field Museum of Natural History has one of the largest fossil collections in the world, writes:

Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil records has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time. [End of quote]

These abrupt appearances and systematic gaps pose critical if not fatal problems for macroevolution. “[I]t should be possible to find some ‘connecting links’,” because “higher categories become distinct entities through extinction of intermediate related groups.” Darwin saw the “fatal” significance of abrupt appearances:

On the sudden appearance of whole groups of Allied Species… If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection.

Darwin also recognized the fatal significance of the problem posed by systematic gaps:

Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme importance of the geological record.

T.H. Huxley, probably his chief advocate, conceded that “if it could be shown that this fact had always existed, the fact would be fatal to the doctrine of evolution.” [End of quotes]